Techeiles 5 – Creature Features: Of Mice (and Lice) and Men

Author’s Note- As usually happens, my simple preamble posts spontaneously expand. This post is the continuation and conclusion of my previous Techeiles post on how advanced Chazal were in the natural sciences. In the previous post we covered astronomy and this post covers biology. It consists of two sections, human and animal so I could have easily broken it into two separate posts and posted them separately. However, these are all background posts to the main topic and I want to finish with the background and write about actual Techeiles in time for Parshat Shelach (I get two chances this year). So I left this post intact but broke it into two sections so the reader can take one section at a time and “catch his breath”.
For the opening Techeiles post (recommended) see HERE.



Section 1 – The Birth of Man

It seems that my Murex trunculus Techeiles series is still moving along at a snail’s pace {groan} despite the fact that in the previous Techeiles post we covered a lot of ground {double groan}.

Let’s move on and discuss – well…us.

Biology, human physiology, sickness and healing and other medical conditions have always been part of the human experience and have been observed and studied close-up from day one. These things are a lot easier to observe than the relationship between the Earth and the sun. We do not really expect Chazal to tell us things that we don’t notice ourselves.

We are taught that there were some changes from the world before Adam ate from the Eitz HaDaas to afterward and before the great flood to afterward. There may also be a few things for which Chazal tell us מיום שחרב בית המקדש which, from the gemara in Sotah, appears to refer to the first Beis HaMikdash.

Nevertheless, Shlomo HaMelech says to us אין כל חדש תחת השמש to imply that nothing new was created after מעשה בראשית (see Shabbos 30b). HKBH set the biology of man and beast with plan and purpose. He knew from the get-go how things should work and there are reasons for everything even if we do not know the reasons. After all, it is all His plan. How, when and why should anything change?

As youngsters, many of us may have heard our cheder Rebbe (or teacher) tell over an obscure Midrash (Midrash Avkir) about Noach. The Midrash says that until Noach was born the fingers of a man’s hand were fused together like a mitten. When Noach was born, suddenly everybody had fingers (or were now born with fingers – see Moshe Weissman, The Midrash Says, Beraishis pg. 78).

As young cheder children, we usually accept the enchanted parts of our mesorah at face value. But when we grow older and think back at them, they may not all look the same way to us. This specific one invokes a whole slew of questions:

Was Adam HaRishon created without fingers even before the Eitz HaDaas and only from the birth of Noach did this change, or was Adam HaRishon born with fingers and then they closed up – presumably due to the sin of the Eitz HaDaas – and only reopened 1000 years later? If the former, what was G-d’s original plan for our hands and why did this change now? If the latter, now that we need to work even harder to produce food, is this when HKBH is going to cripple us with [s]mitten hands? Why isn’t the fact of the fingers getting fused brought in any Midrashim about the Eitz HaDaas episode? Were our toes also fused together or just the fingers? Did apes and monkeys have fingers while humans did not? If Adam HaRishon was created without fingers and maybe even without toes, then the mystical number of 248 limbs was not really applicable from creation but from the birth of Noach. It was only some kind of afterthought. If so, why is it so mystical? (Besides, we could have gotten off with 16 less mitzvos!)

This is similar to the age-old question of what kind of tefillin did the Jews wear before the machlokes of Rashi and Rabenu Tam? If you want to answer that there were always two opinions and customs, when did these two customs diverge and why?

In any case, even though I think many of us have heard this Midrash about Noach’s fingers, it comes from an obscure source that only surfaced in the times of the Rishonim and does not have any other known source in Chazal. Legend has it that in his famous disputation, Ramban stated that we do not need to accept all Midrashim. I will take him up on this one.

This “Chazal” doesn’t matter much anyway because we do not have any Halachos that depend on it (maybe mayim achronim??). My purpose is to talk about divrei Chazal that do serve as a basis for Halacha. So let us discuss another strange biological concept that carries a lot more weight: seven month pregnancy.

When I was a lad, about the same time that I learned about mitten hands, I was also taught that “in the old days”, some women had full term babies after seven months instead of nine. But only some women. There were two types. Amazingly, quite a few Biblical heroes including virtually all of the Shevatim, Zerach and Peretz, Chur and Betzalel (Sanhedrin 69b), Moshe Rabbenu, Shmuel HaNavi (Niddah 38b), and Yitzchok Avinu (Rosh HaShanna 11a) were born full and complete after a seven-month gestation and a shortened one at that. Among all of these, apparently only Yaakov and Eisav are singled out as being born after nine whole months.

All through Shas, the concept of the seven-month gestation is taken for granted. So much so, that the gemara (Yevamos 37a) indicates that the phenomenon was alive and well, albeit as the exception to the norm, even in its post-Biblical Talmudic era. As a result, we have the very firm Halacha of שלשה חודשי הבחנה - the three month waiting period from when a woman who has ended her earlier marriage must wait before entering into a later marriage – in order to avoid a question of paternity that we call ספק בן תשעה לראשון, ספק בן שבעה לאחרון – a doubt whether the baby is a nine-month offspring of the earlier husband or a seven-month offspring of the later husband.

There is even a more serious Halacha. Shulchan Aruch (YD 266:11) says that if a child is born after eight months, if we see underdevelopment in hair and nails, it means the child is a premature nine-month baby and not likely to survive. We cannot do a briss for him on Shabbos. But if he was born at seven months, we classify him as a full-term baby and do the briss on Shabbos even if it is not fully developed!!!

Both of these Halachos are in force to this very day and there are no plans to modify them (not that we ever modify our traditional Halacha). But, is there really such a thing as a full term seven-month gestation (or…was there)?

As you may guess, I did a thorough Googling and, outside of some Jewish discussions, I found absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever, in medical sources and elsewhere, that such a phenomenon exists today or that it ever did. Nothing.

It does not happen at all now and there is no indication from any other culture that it ever did. Human physiology does not indicate it under normal conditions. There is nothing known that should trigger such a thing.

We are forced to say one of two things:

Option One - This was an actual and normal phenomenon up to a certain point in time, but at some point it (inexplicably?) changed and does not occur anymore. This is the fail-safe rationale which we term נשתנה הטבע meaning “the natural course has changed” but this never explains anything. It carries the same baggage as the mitten hands - when did this change? And why did this change? And, if this is how things were meant to be “before”, why should they be different now? Why should there be two types of pregnancies? Why not three types? And, of course, why is there no mention of this in any non-Jewish source?

Option Two - This was never a real phenomenon in the times of Chazal (it is hard to understand the world of Biblical days when there were open miracles and prophets – but prophecy and Biblical miracles ended with Chagai, Zecharia and Malachi - Rabi Chanina ben Dosa notwithstanding). If women had babies after only 6 or 7 months, they were really nine-month babies that were premature. Those who thought that this is an alternative normal gestation period were misinterpreting what they were observing.

The second option makes us very uncomfortable and tells us that Chazal were not on the mark on biology. As such, the Halacha about the three-month waiting period is not medically justified. This is not something that we want to hear and is difficult to accept. Perhaps they were riding on the coattails of the Midrashic traditions even though it wasn’t really going on in their days. It bursts our bubble. But it doesn’t carry all the baggage of option one.

Neither of these options are ideal but there are no other ones. I prefer not to take sides. All I can say is that what we see today does not “shtim” with what Chazal tell us.

While we are in the neighborhood, let’s look at another very interesting Halacha. This is in Even HaEzer 4:14.

If a woman’s husband has been away for more than a year and then gives birth and she claims that she has not been naughty and there is no evidence that she was, there is a dispute if we must call the child a mamzer. The Rema clarifies that this is talking about an absence of more than a year. But less than that, up to a full year, there is no dispute and the child is considered kosher!

This is apparently based on an opinion of Rava Tosefaah in Yevamos 80b that a fetus can stay in the womb for up to three additional months. In other words, in rare cases there can even be a 12-month pregnancy. This is not suggesting a different type of pregnancy but a regular nine-month gestation that happens to drag out a few extra months.

Well, I Googled this up and found a 1945 Time Magazine article which claims a record pregnancy of 375 days. Next best was 317 days (10 ½ months). The woman was 25 years old and do you know what her first name was?

Beulah. (I am not making this up. Evidently, this was no virgin birth.)

So, perhaps something like this is more scientifically feasible today. The Sefer HaMeiri (Yevamos 80b) claims that in his days, a woman gave birth after a 15-month pregnancy. But then, in all seriousness, we can ask: why is there only a three-month wait between husbands to distinguish between a nine-month baby from the first husband or a seven-month from the second? There should be a six month wait in order to rule out an eleven or twelve-month baby from the first husband?

To date, I haven’t found anyone who asks this question and I am certainly stumped.

Let’s move on and see how well Chazal shtim with anatomy. And we will begin at the mystifying Mishna in Niddah 17b.

The Mishna tells us that the sages used a parable to describe the reproductive organs of a woman – the cheder (chamber), the prozdor (passageway), and the aliyah (attic). On impulse this seems to be very intuitive because I assume all most of us have seen diagrams of the female organs at some point in their lives and the figure can be described precisely as such. No worries, mate.

In truth, what we know about the prozdor and cheder make a lot of sense. There is a passage and there is a chamber. The problem is in the attic. What exactly is this? Intuitively, we assume this is the upper portion of the womb which opens out to the tubes and the ovaries (known as the adnexa). Fits on the pictures. However, the Mishna itself throws us two curve balls.

One is that it tells us that the blood discharged from the “attic” is tahor. Come again? Tahor? What is this “attic” and why does it discharge blood at all? The only internal organ in anybody’s anatomy that is meant to discharge blood is what we (or at least I) understand to be the “chamber”. The uterine lining. And the uterine blood is certainly tamei.

The second curve ball is the insinuation that it is even possible to find discharge in the chamber and not only in the prozdor. A living person has no access to anything but the “passage” that we know. This is where everything is found. The only question would be where did it come from?

If only the sages of the gemara could help us understand the enigmatic words of the Mishna. Alas, they only make it worse. The gemara indicates that this “attic” is wedged somewhere between the prozdor and the cheder and has direct access to the prozdor by way of an enclosure they call a “lul” (cage with no top). As such, all of the discharge that we see today is actually only a safek if it comes from the chamber or not and whether it is tamei or tahor.

Talmudic scholars and frum medical experts over the centuries have burnt gallons of midnight oil trying to get this Mishna to shtim with what we can see but it is now 5780 (2020) and nobody has produced a satisfactory explanation. It is known that the Chasam Sofer had to reject the descriptions of Rashi and Tosefos as incompatible to the facts and referred to a diagram from a very learned 17^th century Jewish Doctor (Tuvia HaKohen from Paduah). Unfortunately, his diagram is not all that accurate, either.

For a full overview, see HERE.

Unfortunately, it isn’t only the female reproductive anatomy that Chazal have difficulties with. There seem to incongruencies on both sides of the mechitzah. This brings us to Perek HaArel in Yevamos and the rules of petzuah daka.  

As my loyal readers know, I previously devoted an entire four-part series to analyzing the Halachos of petzuah daka and krus shafcha (PD/KS). In one post, I pointed out several areas where the rulings of Chazal do not “shtim” with empirical reproductive science. I also noted that I am not the first to take notice. Firstly, the gemara itself takes issue with the guidelines of the Braitha in Yevamos 75a. Here is how I wrote it over there:

The gemara quotes a Braitha which defines a petzuah daka as “one who sustained a wound to even one of his 'eggs' or even just a pierce or even…” don’t ask. The gemara on the spot challenges this Braitha with an incident of an accidental injury to one egg (we note from here that even accidental injuries count) and yet he had more children.

So, how does the gemara deal with this?

Shmuel sent the question to the attention of Rav and Rav said: Go and investigate the children where do they come from?

Rav is suggesting that the Braitha’s guidelines are scientifically immutable. So much so, that the more likely explanation is that the children do not come from this man and that his wife must have been “playing the field” (Rashi). The gemara does not tell us if the case was actually investigated and, since the Rabbanut have forbidden DNA tests, how would we carry out this investigation.

Let us assume that the later children resemble the father in question and all the previous children, and that the wife is a pious woman who is not very likely to or have much opportunity to engage in monkey business. Is Rav suggesting that we must declare the later children mamzeirim on the strength of the Braitha?

Tough question.

Even so, Tosefos is not satisfied with the Braitha either. Here is what I wrote:

Tosefos challenges the scientific accuracy of this Braitha that we see those who have lost one testicle and still procreate. The only response that Rabeinu Tam can give us is to distinguish between where a testicle is totally removed – can procreate – to where one is wounded but not removed (and the other is intact) – cannot procreate. 

Despite this distinction, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and, according to Rema, most Rishonim rule like the Braitha. If the Braitha says one is pasul it means he cannot procreate. Period. 

As the post continues, I discussed a 1963 ruling by HRHG Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT”L (IGM E”H 2:3), to permit a doctor to do a partial removal on a married man because the doctors said that this will not diminish his ability to procreate.

I wrote:

We must recognize that Rav Moshe had to struggle with Rambam and Shulchan Aruch and many previous piskei din in 9 ½ columns of small print to make his case. And he had to insist that reproductive conditions of today are not the same as in the times of Chazal.

In other words, Rav Moshe ZT”L had to fall back on the נשתנה הטבע trick to get this fellow off the hook.

Now, all the above has to do with reproductive physiology, which is how do the body parts that we are acquainted with behave. So far, there is no suggestion that the male reproductive anatomy is any different than in the times of Chazal as we have suggested by the female. Or is there?

The seventh perek of Bechoros discusses the blemishes in Human beings that will render such a person unfit for Temple service if he is a Kohen. In daf 44b the Braitha states:

Tanu Rabbanan (Our sages taught) – A man has two orifices. One releases urine and the other releases semen. And there is nothing dividing these two orifices except a membrane that is like the peel of a garlic. When a man has his needs if the two passages are open one to the other, the man becomes sterile.

Based on this, the gemara in Yevamos 75b tells us of an incident in Pumbedisa regarding one whose passage for seed was obstructed and the seed would exit from the passage of the urine. Initially, Rav Bibi (no jokes please) bar Abaye wanted to permit this fellow to marry (or remain married). But, rest assured, he won’t get away with it. Comes Rav Papi and sets him straight, “In its proper place it (the seed) ripens (and can impregnate) and out of its proper place it does not ripen.” And, as such, Rav Papi saved his wife from a forbidden marriage.

And, sure enough, this Halacha is recorded for generations in Rambam Issurei Biah 16:6 and Even HaEzer 5:6. There seem to be no objections to this Halacha in the Rishonim and early poskim. Note, that the Rambam was one of the most renowned physicians of his time.

Despite this, I personally happen to be an alpha male and I cannot identify with this phenomenon. I consulted with a number of other certified males and the consensus seems to be unanimous. It just ain’t so.

Don’t take my word for it. The Schottenstein edition of Shas in Yevamos 75b (footnote 27) takes up the issue. First, they quote that the Chazon Ish in Even HaEzer 12:7 says that we don’t know from such a thing today and he even consulted with doctors (not the Rambam). His first suggestion is – you guessed it - אפשר ונשתנה הטבע בדבר הזה. Aside from this being a strong dochek, the problem with this is that we are not discussing physiology. This is anatomy. Anatomy is not טבע, it is מציאות. We do not readily say נשתנה המציאות. The second problem is that the Rambam (12^th century) and Shulchan Aruch (16^th century) all seems to uphold this phenomenon. We are back to our mitten and seven-month question as to exactly when did this change, how and why? Lastly, to say נשתנה הטבע when it comes to anatomy is a slippery slope. It can give us cause to disqualify all of our Hilchos treifos.

His second approach is to suggest that this is not and was not the normal anatomy even in the times of Chazal, but rather that even then it was a rare occurrence and Chazal were merely addressing the rare case. This is also very difficult to support because the Braitha in Bechoros presents this as a matter of common circumstance. Conversely, there does not seem to be any acknowledgement of such a condition in today’s world even as a rare occurrence.

The Schottenstein footnote references one other opinion which is that of the Teshuvos Yeshuas Malko who wants to suggest that this is referring to an internal point deeper within the male body “as we know to be the case”.  

This is likewise extremely difficult to uphold. Firstly, how can we determine what is going on anywhere deep within the body short of an ultrasound or biopsy? Secondly, the implication of the Braitha is that these two passages run parallel to each other separated by only a very thin membrane; and that they both present two distinct exits for the respective fluids. This, again, is not the case. Lastly, there is nothing in today’s medicine to support the idea of the passages “interchanging” and that it has any detrimental effect on the virility of the seed.

As far as I can determine, it just doesn’t shtim.

With this, we can conclude our discussion on human biology and finally discuss what really matters. Loathsome creatures.





Section 2 – From Dust Thou Comest

The issue of how we are to reconcile the descriptions of Chazal to unfamiliar creatures (and even some familiar ones) is the subject of a number of works put out by Rabbi Natan Slifkin in the previous decade. I refer the reader to his works for an honest and comprehensive analysis. Some of my observations may coincide with his (and I am using his book Sacred Monsters for reference), but they are independent all the same.

To avoid making an already-too-long post into a way-too-long post, the prosecution will suffice with calling only two witnesses. The first are those pesky, annoying, indestructible house lice (Reb Slifkin calls them sweat-lice).  

The gemara in Shabbos 107b implies that the Rabbanan permitted one to kill lice on Shabbos because they do not breed biologically. The gemara goes so far as to differentiate these common lice from a sub-species called beitzel kinim (eggs of lice) which are really another species of true lice that do breed. Apparently, the gemara expects us to know the difference.

The obvious problem is that any form of louse known to us today reproduces biologically. There are no proven observations of lice that spontaneously generate. In short, the lice we know of today do not “shtim” with what it says in Chazal.

Reb Slifkin has a very thorough 25-page essay on this matter at the end of his book Sacred Monsters. His essay focuses on the question of whether the standing lenient Halacha in Shulchan Aruch should be upheld or not. The reader can find all the opinions and sources right there.

For our purposes we are stuck with two inescapable options:

The first option is that the lice that are being discussed in the Talmud are not the same lice as we have today. Those lice are now extinct. This of course brings us back to the question oft-repeated in this post: When did they go extinct, how, and why? (Reb Slifkin asks the “how” question in footnote 10 of his chapter.)

As for Halacha, it would clearly mean that we must change the ruling and forbid the killing of all lice. It is not possible to rely on the concept that the hetter is a tradition in Halacha and there are other esoteric reasons and Chazal only presented this specific reason to give a perceptible rationale because this can only apply if they are the same lice. But our lice are different creatures and not the ones referenced in Shabbos and, as such, there was never a hetter for these.

All this is mentioned by Reb Slifkin (pp. 353-4). But, another downside of this option which I did not notice in is essay is the question: Where were today’s lice during the time of Chazal? It is clear that Chazal did not acknowledge their existence because, if they had, they would have drawn a distinction in the gemara between the two species just as they did with beitzei kinim – unless today’s lice are beitzei kinim (not very likely)! To say that they did not exist at all at that time implies that they “evolved” later. Certainly, incompatible with our creed and a challenge to Shlomo Hamelech אין כל חדש תחת השמש. To say that they did exist at that time but Chazal were not aware of their existence once again challenges the notion that Chazal were fully acquainted with scientific knowledge.

The second option is that these are indeed the same lice and Chazal were mistaken about their biological capabilities. This gives us the luxury to maintain that the Halacha is a standing tradition and is not really dictated by how they reproduce so the hetter stands firm. Of course, to go this route we need to pay the price of conceding that Chazal were not spiritually scientifically advanced and we also need to say that Chazal were not telling us the real story of why it is muttar.

All told, clearly HRHG Yisroel Reisman, Shlita will have to go with Option 1 and renounce the Halachic hetter because the lice that we have today do not shtim with Chazal and they have a 0% chance of being from the creatures described in Rambam Shabbos 11:2.

The final witness that I wish to call to the stand display case [of the Museum of Super-Natural History] is the elusive “mud-mouse”. In the Yeshiva world it’s called the “mudna” (weird) mouse.

The Mishna in Chullin 126b states:

A [dead] mouse that is half flesh and half earth, if one touches the flesh, he is tamei, if he touches the earth, he remains tahor.

Rashi describes this creature (the Bartenura in Mishnayos quotes Rashi word for word): 

There is a species of mouse that does not breed but rather forms itself from earth like refuse that swarms with worms, and if this mouse has not been fully formed, just the right side or the left, one who only touches the earth on the other side remains tahor.

Lest anybody should suggest that the Mishna does not really mean spontaneous generation but some other cause for a mouse to be “part-earth”, we must point to the Braitha quoted in the gemara at the end of the daf and top of the next that explicitly refers to the mouse "that does not breed".

The issues relating both to the [presumed] fallacy of spontaneous generation and the Halachic implications are, more or less, identical to those of the lice. Once again, I refer the reader to the complete subject on the chapter in R’ Slifkin’s Sacred Monsters replete with sources. There is one subtle difference between the two and this is what I want to focus on.

The lice in question in Masechet Shabbos were actually seen at that time. Nobody had any doubt what creature is being analyzed. The only thing is that nobody could see how they generated so there was room to believe that they formed themselves (even if they actually did form themselves, I am sure nobody saw it happen).

The mud[na] mouse is slightly different. Yes, the Mishna presents it as a known creature and has its characteristics down pat so it can determine the Halacha, but-but-but…is there any indication from the Mishna or anywhere that anybody has actually seen this creature?

As I said, the Mishna presents it as a familiar creature. Whose words are those of the Mishna? We can say that a “stam Mishna” is the wording of Rabi Meir or that the Mishna was edited by Rabi Yehuda HaNasi. Did either of them ever see this mouse?

There is no way we can tell, but all the same, there is no indication that they did. Clearly in those times, virtually “everybody” just “knew” they were there, but nobody really saw one.  It is highly possible that, even then, there were those who were skeptical of such a mouse. The Tanaim of the Mishna were ruling the halacha hypothetically based on the common belief – if it exists, this is the Halacha, if it does not, it is just like any ordinary mouse. It is not testifying to its existence.

I have always been fascinated by Rashi’s description. For what does he need to describe it? Isn’t it common knowledge? 

The first place (actually the only place) the Torah mentions a dog – כלב – is in Shmos 11:6. Rashi expends a lot of ink to explain what “yecheratz” means but not a speck on what a kelev is. Why not? Rashi in Eilu Metzios doesn’t bother explaining us what מחרוזות דגים are nor igulei d’veila (pressed figs). Why not? Don’t we need to know what a dag is? Don’t answer that Rashi knows that we learned about fish together with fins and scales in Parshat Shemini and Re’eh because the term דג is not mentioned there. Indeed, HKBH says of man: וירדו בדגת הים but Rashi doesn’t think it’s important to tell us what a dag is over there, either. How does he expect us to know?

The answer is quite obvious. We all know what a kelev is. We see them all over the place. What does Rashi need to tell us something so obvious? We all know what a fish is (and a loaf of figs). There is no need to describe it. So, if this mouse is so ubiquitous, why does Rashi need to tell us that there is such a thing?

Apparently, Rashi does not expect us to know what this creature is. If he needs to tell us that it exists, then he thinks that many, if not most or all, of his readers will have never heard of such a thing. And this is in the middle ages (circa 1050 CE) when everyone believed in spontaneous generation. Rashi didn’t think most people ever saw such a thing. And do you know why?

Because Rashi never saw such a thing!

Rashi accepts the gemara carte blanche (this is Rashi’s style throughout Shas) and how his Rabbaim described it to him and he helps us out by assuring us that it is around somewhere, but he is not testifying that he ever saw it. No, I cannot prove this is so, but I think it interesting that Rav Ovadia of Bartenura quotes Rashi’s description verbatum as if it’s his own. Did he (Rav Ovadia) ever see it?

Before we go on, we must note that the Mishna in Chullin is not the only place in Shas that features our mud[na] mouse. It does a cameo “appearance” in Sanhedrin 91a. This is the sugya of Techiyas HaMeisim. A heretic approached Rabi Ami and said to him that once a man dies, he changes to dust. The natural trend is that the living turn to dust, how can the dust reverse the trend and turn into the living?

Rabi Ami first give him a parabolic argument. He follows up by saying, “And if you don’t accept this, then go out to the valleys and see the mouse that today is half earth and half flesh and tomorrow it becomes totally flesh.”

Rashi first identifies this creature as a squirrel and then tells us that there are some species among them that do not come to existence by breeding. Once again, he has to teach the reader what this is. Though it is a bit odd that he needs to identify it as a squirrel in particular (perhaps he just means “rodent”).

I was always bothered by this gemara. Was the heretic aware of this creature? If so, why didn’t Rabi Ami just refer to it instead of sending him to look for it? If he was not aware of this creature, how was Rabi Ami so confident that he would be able to locate it? Better, why didn’t Rabi Ami just show it to him? And, this thought brings me to my strongest curiosity – did Rabi Ami ever see this creature himself?

I have no idea, but my spider-mouse sense tells me - no.

All told, this creature is featured two places in Shas but neither place is testifying that anybody actually saw it.

Rambam, who vouches for spontaneous generation and codifies the Halacha as presented, tells us that, “There is no end to the number of people who have told me that they have seen it. This is despite the fact that the existence of such a creature is astonishing and I do not know of any explanation for it.”

This seems to imply that Rambam accepted spontaneous generation for insects and worms where the entire organism arose from the rot. But something that was earth and gradually transformed itself into flesh and blood over the copurse of time is way over the top. One thing is certain – Rambam is admitting to the world that he never saw it!

What comes out of all this is that, even though the Talmud refers to this mouse in two places as a known creature, the Talmud is not really assuring us that it ever existed. As such, one who wishes to claim that the gemara is not really telling us that such a creature exists, but rather what is the Halacha if it does, is on solid ground (although it may be a bit muddy.)

What do Gedolim say about it today?

Many are those who understand the gemara to mean that this creature definitely exist[s]/[ed] and if the gemara says it exist[s]/[ed] there is no room to argue.

R' Slifkin writes (Sacred Monsters pg. 333) that the Klausenberger Rebbe, ZT”L “presented the Talmud’s description of this rodent as proof of spontaneous generation and ridiculed the idea that a non-Jewish scientist would know better than the sages.” (Note – The Rebbe may have been using this concept to permit some of the parasites that we find in fish). I sincerely cannot describe how much unlimited admiration I have for the Klausenberger Rebbe ZT”L. But still…did he ever see this mouse?

Likewise, HRHG Rav Moshe Sternbuch, who lives near me in Har Nof, said in a Headlines podcast on Feb. 20, 2016 that it certainly existed and is currently hidden or extinct. This recalls Reb Slifkin’s comment about the lice – how can a creature that does not need to breed become extinct? (Perhaps the right type of mud became extinct.)

Conversely, HRHG Rav Moshe Meiselman, who lives near me in Har Nof, said in a Headlines podcast seven weeks earlier on Jan. 2, 2016 that Chazal knew “the truth” about reproduction and that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. But the heretics did believe in it. As such, Rabi Ami in Sanhedrin 91a, in an effort to make the heretic accept the concept of techiyas hameisim, tried to convince the heretic by impressing on what he (the heretic) believes in. But Rabi Ami did not believe in it. This would answer why Rabi Ami sent him hunting and did not attempt to produce the creature himself.

This approach is mostly incompatible with the Mishna in Chullin unless we say that there, as well, Chazal were only speaking hypothetically. It is very hard to read such a thing into the Braitha at the end of the daf. And, for sure, Rashi takes both references quite literally.

HRHG Rav Moshe Maimonides, ZT”L, who lived far away from me in Egypt, is reluctant to accept that any mammal can generate without breeding, like Rav Meiselman, but is also reluctant to say it doesn’t exist, like Rav Sternbuch, but, unlike Rav Sternbuch, he is also reluctant to say that it is extinct, since so many people claim to have seen it. But he admits that he hasn’t seen it. (All this was 800 years ago.)

From Moshe to Moshe there is no one like Moshe.

All I can say is that I live in Har Nof but my name is not Moshe. It is hard for me to believe that this creature ever existed. It does not seem to exist now. It is also hard for me to believe that Chazal, in their time, did not sincerely believe it exists. If they did not really believe it exists, why would they fool us into believing what they didn’t believe?

With the two “Rav Moshe”s, we are clearly wearing two watches. I am not sure what time it is. The two watches don’t shtim. But, unlike Rav Reisman, Shita, I have come to terms with the sincere belief that not all things in Chazal need to shtim.

I think we are finally ready to talk about the Murex trunculus.

Stay tuned...